Dear Mailinglists,
the cultural homogenous group of Germans tends to discuss in German. So to give you a short update on what is happening:
A White Bag protest movement against the image filter is forming.
And people who talked privately about a fork for some time, start to think and say it loud.
In longer:
http://www.iberty.net/2011/10/news-from-german-wikipedia-white-bag.html
regards,
Dirk Franke/Southpark
So, we are going to have virtually two cloned German Wikipedias, one with image filter extension enabled and other disabled. Not very useful, but it is your choice.
I hope you enable the Semantic MediaWiki extension in the new fork.
Good luck.
2011/10/22 Dirk Franke dirkingofranke@googlemail.com
Dear Mailinglists,
the cultural homogenous group of Germans tends to discuss in German. So to give you a short update on what is happening:
A White Bag protest movement against the image filter is forming.
And people who talked privately about a fork for some time, start to think and say it loud.
In longer:
http://www.iberty.net/2011/10/news-from-german-wikipedia-white-bag.html
regards,
Dirk Franke/Southpark _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Lets just disable the filter for the german wikipedia and make the decisions wiki per wiki. Ebe123
On 11-10-22 3:52 PM, "emijrp" emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
So, we are going to have virtually two cloned German Wikipedias, one with image filter extension enabled and other disabled. Not very useful, but it is your choice.
I hope you enable the Semantic MediaWiki extension in the new fork.
Good luck.
2011/10/22 Dirk Franke dirkingofranke@googlemail.com
Dear Mailinglists,
the cultural homogenous group of Germans tends to discuss in German. So to give you a short update on what is happening:
A White Bag protest movement against the image filter is forming.
And people who talked privately about a fork for some time, start to think and say it loud.
In longer:
http://www.iberty.net/2011/10/news-from-german-wikipedia-white-bag.html
regards,
Dirk Franke/Southpark _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
If something is useful or not, shouldn't be the question. Alt least the WMF seams to see it that way, because it is very doubtful that the image filter is useful for the project, for its goals, growth and development.
I would invite the Board to view the movie "Schoolbreak Special: The Day They Came To Arrest The Book". Well - I know it is old and i know that isn't such deep. But in some way it wraps up all the ill logic behind the current discussions. If you have a copy, maybe at your local library, then you should watch it. For everyone else is still Youtube:
http://youtu.be/Pt_n3cBYCVA http://youtu.be/Z7qoo4kbcV4 http://youtu.be/5pguP16g5NM http://youtu.be/4EtKZbEDKl0
nya~
Am 22.10.2011 20:52, schrieb emijrp:
So, we are going to have virtually two cloned German Wikipedias, one with image filter extension enabled and other disabled. Not very useful, but it is your choice.
I hope you enable the Semantic MediaWiki extension in the new fork.
Good luck.
2011/10/22 Dirk Frankedirkingofranke@googlemail.com
Dear Mailinglists,
the cultural homogenous group of Germans tends to discuss in German. So to give you a short update on what is happening:
A White Bag protest movement against the image filter is forming.
And people who talked privately about a fork for some time, start to think and say it loud.
In longer:
http://www.iberty.net/2011/10/news-from-german-wikipedia-white-bag.html
regards,
Dirk Franke/Southpark _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Dirk Franke dirkingofranke@googlemail.com wrote:
And people who talked privately about a fork for some time, start to think and say it loud.
Thanks for the update, Dirk. I think it's good that people are seriously discussing what it would mean to fork and how it would be done. Forking the project if WMF policies or decisions are considered unacceptable is one of the fundamental ways in which Wikimedia projects are different from most of the web; it's a key freedom, one which should be exercised judiciously but which should be preserved and protected nonetheless.
With that said, I also think it's important to remember that Sue has explicitly affirmed that the development of any technical solution would be done in partnership with the community, including people who've expressed strong opposition to what's been discussed to date. [1]
The vote in German Wikipedia, and most of the discussions to date, have focused on the specific ideas and mock-ups that were presented as part of the referendum. But as Sue has made clear, those ideas and mock-ups are just that, and the Board resolution creates room for different ideas as well, ranging from the simple (disabling/blurring all images) to the complex (like a category-based filtering system).
Some of these ideas are explored here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Next_steps/en#Potenti...
Is there a similar brainstorming page on dewiki already? If not, would you be interested in organizing some community discussion on whether there are solutions within the scope of the resolution that the dewiki community would find acceptable, or whether the prevailing view is that the resolution itself should be scrapped altogether?
Thanks, Erik
[1]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069472.html
Why should we open a brain storming section to think about something that is seen as unacceptable in the first way? What is left is a simple "No Images/All Images" solution. Anything else could not be justified. You would have to respect this points:
* categorization should not be influenced by viewpoints (e.g. "this is/might be offensive, lets move it to somewhere else.") Commons policies violate this already!
* no available content should be treated different then something else, as long the reader does not define it for itself. That essentially means no presets for filtering made by someone else then the reader itself.
Greetings nya~
Am 22.10.2011 21:58, schrieb Erik Moeller:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Dirk Franke dirkingofranke@googlemail.com wrote:
And people who talked privately about a fork for some time, start to think and say it loud.
Thanks for the update, Dirk. I think it's good that people are seriously discussing what it would mean to fork and how it would be done. Forking the project if WMF policies or decisions are considered unacceptable is one of the fundamental ways in which Wikimedia projects are different from most of the web; it's a key freedom, one which should be exercised judiciously but which should be preserved and protected nonetheless.
With that said, I also think it's important to remember that Sue has explicitly affirmed that the development of any technical solution would be done in partnership with the community, including people who've expressed strong opposition to what's been discussed to date. [1]
The vote in German Wikipedia, and most of the discussions to date, have focused on the specific ideas and mock-ups that were presented as part of the referendum. But as Sue has made clear, those ideas and mock-ups are just that, and the Board resolution creates room for different ideas as well, ranging from the simple (disabling/blurring all images) to the complex (like a category-based filtering system).
Some of these ideas are explored here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Next_steps/en#Potenti...
Is there a similar brainstorming page on dewiki already? If not, would you be interested in organizing some community discussion on whether there are solutions within the scope of the resolution that the dewiki community would find acceptable, or whether the prevailing view is that the resolution itself should be scrapped altogether?
Thanks, Erik
[1]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069472.html
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Dirk Franke dirkingofranke@googlemail.com wrote:
And people who talked privately about a fork for some time, start to think and say it loud.
Thanks for the update, Dirk. I think it's good that people are seriously discussing what it would mean to fork and how it would be done. Forking the project if WMF policies or decisions are considered unacceptable is one of the fundamental ways in which Wikimedia projects are different from most of the web; it's a key freedom, one which should be exercised judiciously but which should be preserved and protected nonetheless.
With that said, I also think it's important to remember that Sue has explicitly affirmed that the development of any technical solution would be done in partnership with the community, including people who've expressed strong opposition to what's been discussed to date. [1]
I am sorry but this is purest echo chamber talk, you are dealing out. You hear what you are saying, but you don't hear a thing anyone else is saying, There has always been a consensus that what you are proposing is evil and against what we as a non-profit free content site stand for. There has never been the slightest consensus we should take one step on the road you want us to embark on. Period,
The vote in German Wikipedia, and most of the discussions to date, have focused on the specific ideas and mock-ups that were presented as part of the referendum. But as Sue has made clear, those ideas and mock-ups are just that, and the Board resolution creates room for different ideas as well, ranging from the simple (disabling/blurring all images) to the complex (like a category-based filtering system).
Some of these ideas are explored here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Next_steps/en#Potenti...
Is there a similar brainstorming page on dewiki already? If not, would you be interested in organizing some community discussion on whether there are solutions within the scope of the resolution that the dewiki community would find acceptable, or whether the prevailing view is that the resolution itself should be scrapped altogether?
The resolution was always against long held perennial proposal opposition. It never was going to fly. Walk away from the dead horse.
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
There has always been a consensus that what you are proposing is evil and against what we as a non-profit free content site stand for.
What am I proposing, Jussi-Ville? So far, the only material proposal I've made as part of this debate is here:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/069077.html
And, I don't think you're being accurate, historically or otherwise. Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedia have implemented their own "personal image hiding feature" (http://ur1.ca/5g81t and http://ur1.ca/5g81w), and even paintings like "The Origin of the World" are hidden by default (!) e.g. in Hebrew Wikipedia ( http://ur1.ca/5g81c ) , or images of the founder of the Bahai faith in Arabic Wikipedia ( http://ur1.ca/5g81s ).
Do you think that the Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedians who implemented these templates are evil?
Do you think that it is evil to leave it up to editors whether they want to implement similar collapsing on a per-article basis (and to leave it up to communities to agree on policies around that)? Because that's what I'm proposing. And I don't think it's particularly evil, nor inconsistent with our traditions.
Erik
Am 22.10.2011 22:31, schrieb Erik Moeller:
What am I proposing, Jussi-Ville? So far, the only material proposal I've made as part of this debate is here:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/069077.html
And, I don't think you're being accurate, historically or otherwise. Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedia have implemented their own "personal image hiding feature" (http://ur1.ca/5g81t and http://ur1.ca/5g81w), and even paintings like "The Origin of the World" are hidden by default (!) e.g. in Hebrew Wikipedia ( http://ur1.ca/5g81c ) , or images of the founder of the Bahai faith in Arabic Wikipedia ( http://ur1.ca/5g81s ).
Do you think that the Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedians who implemented these templates are evil?
Do you think that it is evil to leave it up to editors whether they want to implement similar collapsing on a per-article basis (and to leave it up to communities to agree on policies around that)? Because that's what I'm proposing. And I don't think it's particularly evil, nor inconsistent with our traditions.
Erik
No one said it would be evil. But since we already have working solutions for this projects, why do we need another, now global, solution, based on categories? Thats when it becomes hairy.
nya~
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com wrote:
No one said it would be evil. But since we already have working solutions for this projects, why do we need another, now global, solution, based on categories? Thats when it becomes hairy.
The Board of Trustees didn't pass a resolution asking for the implementation of a filter based on categories.
The Board asked Sue "in consultation with the community, to develop and implement a personal image hiding feature that will enable readers to easily hide images hosted on the projects that they do not wish to view, either when first viewing the image or ahead of time through preference settings."
Based on the consultation and discussion that's taken place so far, I think it's pretty safe to say that a uniform approach based on categories has about a snowball's chance in hell of actually being widely adopted, used and embraced by the community, if not triggering strong opposition and antagonism that's completely against our goals and our mission.
With that in mind, I would humbly propose that we kill with fire at this point the idea of a category-based image filtering system.
There are, however, approaches to empowering both editors and readers that do not necessarily suffer from the same problems.
Erik
Am 22.10.2011 23:44, schrieb Erik Moeller:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com wrote:
No one said it would be evil. But since we already have working solutions for this projects, why do we need another, now global, solution, based on categories? Thats when it becomes hairy.
The Board of Trustees didn't pass a resolution asking for the implementation of a filter based on categories.
The Board asked Sue "in consultation with the community, to develop and implement a personal image hiding feature that will enable readers to easily hide images hosted on the projects that they do not wish to view, either when first viewing the image or ahead of time through preference settings."
Based on the consultation and discussion that's taken place so far, I think it's pretty safe to say that a uniform approach based on categories has about a snowball's chance in hell of actually being widely adopted, used and embraced by the community, if not triggering strong opposition and antagonism that's completely against our goals and our mission.
With that in mind, I would humbly propose that we kill with fire at this point the idea of a category-based image filtering system.
There are, however, approaches to empowering both editors and readers that do not necessarily suffer from the same problems.
Erik
I gladly agree that category based filtering should be off the table. It has way to many problems that we could justify it in any way.
What approaches do you have in mind, that would empower the editors and the readers, aside from an hide/show all solution?
nya~
On 22 October 2011 22:51, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com wrote:
What approaches do you have in mind, that would empower the editors and the readers, aside from an hide/show all solution?
And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is the use case this does not serve?
The board have not detailed what arguments unanimously convinced them, both for the original resolution and, even after all the debate, to uphold it unanimously again after months of acrimonious objection. If restarting communication with people who no longer trust them is considered important, then, if they could please each (individually) do so, in as much detail as possible, that would help a *lot*.
- d.
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 October 2011 22:51, Tobias Oelgarte And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is the use case this does not serve?
Clearly Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedia found a "show/hide all" solution inadequate. Are folks from those communities on the list? It would be interesting to hear from them as to why they ended up with the collapsing approach they took.
To the extent that there's a discernible institutional view as to why these options are being discussed in the first place, it's not about morality of the images, but it's about helping our audience to not be freaked out, alienated or pissed off by the editorial choices we make in our projects. And they might be so because they're in a public or professional setting, or because they're using our projects together with their kids, or they don't know what to expect when looking up a given topic, or because they have particular sensibilities.
A show/hide all images function is likely too drastic to serve some of these use cases well. So for example, if you're at work, you might not want to have autofellatio on your screen by accident, but you'd be annoyed at having to un-hide a fabulous screenshot of a wonderful piece of open source software in order to mitigate that risk.
True, most of the time it's fairly self-evident what images an article might contain and you could make the choice to show/hide before looking it up. Not always, though, and of course it's somewhat illusionary to think that Wiki[mp]edia consumption always follows a highly predictable, intentional pattern.
Making it easy for editors to say, based on normal editorial judgment and established practices in their project, "Hey, reader, there's something here you might not want to see ... and BTW, would you like to remember that choice?" seems like a more straightforward accommodation of the concerns that we're talking about than saying "We're not censored! Click here to turn off images if you don't like it".
With that said, the mobile site already has a generic "Disable images" view and something similar would definitely make sense on the main site as well. If both options were available (marking images as collapsible in a standard way, & show/hide all for all media), communities could evolve standards and practices within that framework as they see fit.
Erik
On 22 October 2011 23:36, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
A show/hide all images function is likely too drastic to serve some of these use cases well. So for example, if you're at work, you might not want to have autofellatio on your screen by accident, but you'd be annoyed at having to un-hide a fabulous screenshot of a wonderful piece of open source software in order to mitigate that risk.
... That's the convincing use case? "But I might have to click for a software screenshot"? Really?
That's really not an even slightly convincing justification for a huge and controversial infrastructure addition to all Wikimedia projects.
I say this keeping in mind that this thread is about people who already don't trust the Foundation, and how to get them back, rather than have the Board's insistence on an image filter catalyse a fork. You (and they) will need actually convincing examples.
My use case for work is actually pretty close to this, and click-to-show would be just fine (and is exactly what I want). I realise I'm speaking only for me personally. Though I note it also solves the case for Sarah Stierch's example of looking up [[human penis]] at work.
With that said, the mobile site already has a generic "Disable images" view and something similar would definitely make sense on the main site as well.
I just tried it. It lacks the "click to show" feature. Add that and I'll start using the mobile interface by default at work immediately.
If both options were available (marking images as collapsible in a standard way, & show/hide all for all media), communities could evolve standards and practices within that framework as they see fit.
Collapsibility, and various variants on a per-image show/hide filter, was rejected on en:wp in 2005 or 2006 when the [[autofellatio]] controversies were at their height. (I went looking for the link recently and couldn't find it, but it ran for quite a while and got quite a lot of votes - anyone?) Making it available will require a proper on-wiki poll on each project, rather than imposition from above.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 22 October 2011 23:36, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
With that said, the mobile site already has a generic "Disable images" view and something similar would definitely make sense on the main site as well.
I just tried it. It lacks the "click to show" feature. Add that and I'll start using the mobile interface by default at work immediately.
Have you filed a bug in Bugzilla? If not, where's the current ticket? :-)
If both options were available (marking images as collapsible in a standard way, & show/hide all for all media), communities could evolve standards and practices within that framework as they see fit.
Collapsibility, and various variants on a per-image show/hide filter, was rejected on en:wp in 2005 or 2006 when the [[autofellatio]] controversies were at their height. (I went looking for the link recently and couldn't find it, but it ran for quite a while and got quite a lot of votes - anyone?) Making it available will require a proper on-wiki poll on each project, rather than imposition from above.
I don't have a link, but the autofellatio discussion is mentioned at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Timeline. If anyone finds a link, please post it there.
MZMcBride
On 22 Oct 2011 at 15:36, Erik Moeller wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 October 2011 22:51, Tobias Oelgarte And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is the use case this does not serve?
A show/hide all images function is likely too drastic to serve some of these use cases well. So for example, if you're at work, you might not want to have autofellatio on your screen by accident, but you'd be annoyed at having to un-hide a fabulous screenshot of a wonderful piece of open source software in order to mitigate that risk.
Plus for the occasions that some kind vandal adds similar images to your user talk page so that you don't even know or have control over what is being displayed let along an ability to stop it. An unfortunate eye opener in the workplace, or similarly at home when working with the family. :-/
I do wish that this discussion can just move to implementation. This is about what I get to filter for what I get to see, or when I get to see it. I have had enough of other people believing that they get to make their choices for me.
Regards, Andrew
Am 23.10.2011 01:57, schrieb Billinghurst:
On 22 Oct 2011 at 15:36, Erik Moeller wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 October 2011 22:51, Tobias Oelgarte And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is the use case this does not serve?
A show/hide all images function is likely too drastic to serve some of these use cases well. So for example, if you're at work, you might not want to have autofellatio on your screen by accident, but you'd be annoyed at having to un-hide a fabulous screenshot of a wonderful piece of open source software in order to mitigate that risk.
Plus for the occasions that some kind vandal adds similar images to your user talk page so that you don't even know or have control over what is being displayed let along an ability to stop it. An unfortunate eye opener in the workplace, or similarly at home when working with the family. :-/
I do wish that this discussion can just move to implementation. This is about what I get to filter for what I get to see, or when I get to see it. I have had enough of other people believing that they get to make their choices for me.
Regards, Andrew
The idea isn't bad. But it is based on the premise that there are enough users of the filter to build such correlations. It requires enough input to work properly and therefore enough users of the feature, that have longer lists. But how often does an average logged in user find such an image and handle accordingly? That would be relatively seldom, resulting in a very short own list, by relatively few users, which makes it hard to start the system (warm up time).
Since i love to find ways on how to exploit systems there is one simple thing on my mind. Just login to put a picture of penis/bondage/... on the list and than add another one of the football team you don't like. Repeat this step often enough and the system will believe that all users that don't like to see a penis would also not like to see images of that football team.
Another way would be: "I find everything offensive." This would hurt the system, since correlations would be much harder to find.
If we assume good faith, then it would probably work. But as soon we have spammers of this kind, it will lay in ruins, considering the amount of users and corresponding relatively short lists (in average).
Just my thoughts on this idea.
Greetings nya~
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:57:59AM +1100, Billinghurst wrote:
I do wish that this discussion can just move to implementation. This is about what I get to filter for what I get to see, or when I get to see it. I have had enough of other people believing that they get to make their choices for me.
That's kind of backwards.
We're trying to figure out how to let you do that *WITHOUT* accidentally (or deliberately (!)) ending up making your choices for you.
It's actually a rather deceptively hard puzzle.
I have the impression that most opposition comes from people with an IT background. That is to say, people who have tried to figure it out, and have had some trouble finding a solution. (I may be biased, since that's my own personal background too)
sincerely, Kim Bruning
On 28 October 2011 20:08, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I have the impression that most opposition comes from people with an IT background. That is to say, people who have tried to figure it out, and have had some trouble finding a solution. (I may be biased, since that's my own personal background too)
I'm actually surprised Wikimedia devs are generally so enthusiastic for it. (or the ones who aren't, are refraining from speaking up.)
- d.
Erik Moeller wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 October 2011 22:51, Tobias Oelgarte And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is the use case this does not serve?
Clearly Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedia found a "show/hide all" solution inadequate. Are folks from those communities on the list? It would be interesting to hear from them as to why they ended up with the collapsing approach they took.
Clearly nothing, Erik. You know not to make irrational and unfounded jumps like this when examining a phenomenon. You're a programmer, FFS.
There's nothing to suggest that the Hebrew or Arabic Wikipedias found a show/hide solution inadequate. There's quite a bit to suggest that such a solution is much more difficult to (decently) implement, though. There's also quite a bit to suggest that wiki-editors work with the tools available to them generally, not the tools that could be available to them.
Collapsing has been used in navboxes at the bottom of the page for ages. I'm not sure if it's the German Wikipedia or the English Wikipedia that started it, but the history is surely in MediaWiki:Common.js or MediaWiki:Monobook.js, for those who are interested. In any case, the English Wikipedia, at least, used to do the exact same with certain images. There were even a few helper templates. I think "Template:Linkimage" was one; "Template:PopUpImage" appears to be another, looking through the revision history of "Autofellatio" on the English Wikipedia. I don't believe any such templates are used (legitimately) to obscure or obfuscate images on the English Wikipedia today. They were tossed out some time ago.
This was the technology available to wiki-editors, so this is what they chose to use. Necessity and opportunity are the parents of all hacks, surely.
Drawing a conclusion such as "Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedia found a 'show/hide all' solution inadequate" from the historical evidence doesn't make any sense to me. If there's evidence of this conclusion (beyond relying on the absence of implementation), I'm sure many people on this list would be interested in it.
It should be noted that there are also on-wiki resources for plotting actions and events related to controversial content: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Timeline. I strongly urge you and others to add information (with cites, as necessary and appropriate). :-)
MZMcBride
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 03:36:18PM -0700, Erik Moeller wrote:
Making it easy for editors to say, based on normal editorial judgment and established practices in their project, "Hey, reader, there's something here you might not want to see ... and BTW, would you like to remember that choice?" seems like a more straightforward accommodation of the concerns that we're talking about than saying
That's actually just POV-pushing :-( , albeit very politely. :-)
sincerely, Kim Bruning
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 03:36:18PM -0700, Erik Moeller wrote:
Making it easy for editors to say, based on normal editorial judgment and established practices in their project, "Hey, reader, there's something here you might not want to see ... and BTW, would you like to remember that choice?" seems like a more straightforward accommodation of the concerns that we're talking about than saying
That's actually just POV-pushing :-( , albeit very politely. :-)
You are being very much too kind to Erik here, This is the rhetorical bottom of the barrel. Claiming you can read the other persons mind through telepathy.
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 22:56 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is the use case this does not serve?
Are you even trying to pretend to be serious? Use case: me reading an article.
It is my impression that you are pushing for this hide/show all solution because you know it will be useless and thus no one will be using it.
Am 23.10.2011 08:30, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 22:56 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is the use case this does not serve?
Are you even trying to pretend to be serious? Use case: me reading an article.
It is my impression that you are pushing for this hide/show all solution because you know it will be useless and thus no one will be using it.
That isn't the case. It was claimed multiple times that reading Wikipedia in front of bystanders can be a problem, since unwillingly some "disturbing" image might show up. If that is the case, then you can hide the images by default and enable them while you read. There were also thoughts to not hide the images entirely, but to blur them. So you will have glimpse on what it is about and could view it (remove the bluring) by just hovering it.
This would satisfy many typical needs and it isn't a thought to make the proposed feature useless. It is the result if you try to react to this problem without the need for categories and that wikipedians would need to play the censor for others.
nya~
On 22/10/11 22:56, David Gerard wrote:
On 22 October 2011 22:51, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com wrote:
What approaches do you have in mind, that would empower the editors and the readers, aside from an hide/show all solution?
And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is the use case this does not serve?
The board have not detailed what arguments unanimously convinced them, both for the original resolution and, even after all the debate, to uphold it unanimously again after months of acrimonious objection. If restarting communication with people who no longer trust them is considered important, then, if they could please each (individually) do so, in as much detail as possible, that would help a *lot*.
- d.
I agree.
A cookie-based "hide all images"/"show all images" toggle clearly visible in the toolbar at the top of pages. together with click-to-reveal for individual images when in the "hide all" mode should be all that is needed to deal with the various cultural concerns regarding images, as well as concerns about censorship.
It would also be very easy to implement.
Perhaps an exception might be made for images displayed at less than, say, 30x30, to allow for icons and things like small embedded symbols within text -- although small nav images could conceivably be used for image-trolling, I would imagine that just about any WP community would regard that as unencylopedic, and block any attempts to do so.
I'd be interested in any arguments that might be made against such a proposal.
- Neil
A cookie-based "hide all images"/"show all images" toggle clearly visible in the toolbar at the top of pages. together with ... I'd be interested in any arguments that might be made against such a proposal.
How about the fact that newspaper websites regularly include shocking images of violence and death on their main pages and have few complaints as they rely on editorial control rather than built-in software tricks? This is a solution looking for a problem, the key argument has always been that there is scant evidence that the public are asking for these options and our beloved projects already have a great reputation for good editorial judgement/consensus.
If any person, institution, ISP or country wished to control images on Wikipedia they can use readily available add-ons or filters, most for free, without the Foundation having to use charitable funds to build it in as a controversial default and take legal responsibility when it fails.
Cheers, Fae
On 23 October 2011 11:50, Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
How about the fact that newspaper websites regularly include shocking images of violence and death on their main pages and have few complaints as they rely on editorial control rather than built-in software tricks? This is a solution looking for a problem, the key argument has always been that there is scant evidence that the public are asking for these options and our beloved projects already have a great reputation for good editorial judgement/consensus.
The Foundation considers de:wp's careful and thoughtful decision to put [[:de:vulva]] on the front page of de:wp with a picture was a clear failure of community judgement sufficient to justify the imposition of a filter from outside.
- d.
On 23 October 2011 12:02, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 October 2011 11:50, Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
The Foundation considers de:wp's careful and thoughtful decision to put [[:de:vulva]] on the front page of de:wp with a picture was a clear failure of community judgement sufficient to justify the imposition of a filter from outside.
One can draw a parallel with press regulatory bodies who have a role in interpreting legislative requirements or responding to significant numbers of public complaints. This does not mean that the regulatory body interferes with editorial control, policies or in any other way claims operational responsibility for the content of newspapers.
If the WMF wishes to control content, then the role of the Foundation moves from operational support to all content control and hence liability. By increasing the cases where the Foundation makes such decisions, it would be hard to continue to use the rationale that the Foundation does not control content and a host of new and painful legal issues arise.
PS "clear failure" looks like an opinion, not a statement of fact. Presumably this relates to an official position of the WMF?
Cheers, Fae
On 23 October 2011 12:30, Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
PS "clear failure" looks like an opinion, not a statement of fact. Presumably this relates to an official position of the WMF?
An opinion held by several staff on the matter, including the Executive Director. I consider this significant, you may not.
- d.
On 23 October 2011 12:38, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 October 2011 12:30, Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
...
PS "clear failure" looks like an opinion, not a statement of fact. Presumably this relates to an official position of the WMF?
An opinion held by several staff on the matter, including the Executive Director. I consider this significant, you may not.
David, your statement confirms that this was an opinion, and based on your wording I have to assume that this was not an official position of the WMF but the personal opinion of some of the staff.
As for significance, I made no claim either way in my email, for some reason you seem to be reading my text negatively as if I was attacking the WMF or Sue personally. I apologise if I have used some offensive language or phrasing that gave you such a perception but I would like to point out that I did not mention staff or individuals, only the organization.
I think that the opinions of the Executive Director of the WMF should be considered significant, so we are in agreement.
Cheers, Fae
Having checked the original blog posthttp://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/, I think it's either a rare exception of poorly chosen wording, or shows a judgment within WMF that I can't agree with.
I remember when the director of featured articles on enwiki scrupulously treated all topics equal - whether shocking, controversial, mundane, or taboo -- because the job of the front page of an *encyclopedia* is to showcase high quality knowledge, not present value judgments on it.
Value judgments on topics are the role of members of the public and end users, who legitimately hold views that they like math and hate politics, love politics but hate pornography, love porn but oppose images of religious figures, as they individually choose. The job of *encyclopedists* however is to treat these all as knowledge and not to color or pre-filter them by considering some topics more "worthy" than others or less "suitable" to be included as knowledge or showcased as high quality writing.
Does that include front page exposure? In the view of the previous en:wp Director of Featured Articles, definitely yes. His rationale at the time this came up on en:wp was that to do otherwise is to be ashamed apologists of content that our community has created. He also observed that making the point publicly of our utter neutrality had value in itself. If de:wiki (or any project) put [[vulva]] on its front page, and the article was of high enough quality to do so - and it would have been heavily scrutinized before as a controversial topic - then at that point it's a topic like any other and it goes there on its own merits.
*It is core to our ethos* that we are neutral in our views on topics, whether mundane, obscure or emotive to some people. We could not honestly claim neutrality if we signal via our content nomination process that some topics are not as "valid" as others or are more "shameful" or less "acceptable" to learn about, or to be made visible.
In this case, [[vulva]] is of more than academic interest to 1/2 the human race as a normal lifelong body part --- one that is often strikingly lacking in information (cultural taboos on women's education and sexual knowledge are still very common globally and cause untold harm!)
Should this be outweighed in the balance by the fact that the other (usually male!) half of humanity sees in it a source of purile humor or an "ONOES! THE CHILDREN"..... especially when fully half of those under-16 children have one of the said body parts and have as much right to it being treated as valid knowledge as they would treat an eyeball, an arm, a cancer or a method of DNA sequencing... and without us signalling it as "shameful" to learn about by virtue of exclusion from equal handling.
I know which of these stances I respect more.
FT2
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:02 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The Foundation considers de:wp's careful and thoughtful decision to put [[:de:vulva]] on the front page of de:wp with a picture was a clear failure of community judgement sufficient to justify the imposition of a filter from outside.
thank you!
h
Am 29.10.2011 13:31, schrieb FT2:
Having checked the original blog posthttp://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/, I think it's either a rare exception of poorly chosen wording, or shows a judgment within WMF that I can't agree with.
I remember when the director of featured articles on enwiki scrupulously treated all topics equal - whether shocking, controversial, mundane, or taboo -- because the job of the front page of an *encyclopedia* is to showcase high quality knowledge, not present value judgments on it.
Value judgments on topics are the role of members of the public and end users, who legitimately hold views that they like math and hate politics, love politics but hate pornography, love porn but oppose images of religious figures, as they individually choose. The job of *encyclopedists* however is to treat these all as knowledge and not to color or pre-filter them by considering some topics more "worthy" than others or less "suitable" to be included as knowledge or showcased as high quality writing.
Does that include front page exposure? In the view of the previous en:wp Director of Featured Articles, definitely yes. His rationale at the time this came up on en:wp was that to do otherwise is to be ashamed apologists of content that our community has created. He also observed that making the point publicly of our utter neutrality had value in itself. If de:wiki (or any project) put [[vulva]] on its front page, and the article was of high enough quality to do so - and it would have been heavily scrutinized before as a controversial topic - then at that point it's a topic like any other and it goes there on its own merits.
*It is core to our ethos* that we are neutral in our views on topics, whether mundane, obscure or emotive to some people. We could not honestly claim neutrality if we signal via our content nomination process that some topics are not as "valid" as others or are more "shameful" or less "acceptable" to learn about, or to be made visible.
In this case, [[vulva]] is of more than academic interest to 1/2 the human race as a normal lifelong body part --- one that is often strikingly lacking in information (cultural taboos on women's education and sexual knowledge are still very common globally and cause untold harm!)
Should this be outweighed in the balance by the fact that the other (usually male!) half of humanity sees in it a source of purile humor or an "ONOES! THE CHILDREN"..... especially when fully half of those under-16 children have one of the said body parts and have as much right to it being treated as valid knowledge as they would treat an eyeball, an arm, a cancer or a method of DNA sequencing... and without us signalling it as "shameful" to learn about by virtue of exclusion from equal handling.
I know which of these stances I respect more.
FT2
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:02 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The Foundation considers de:wp's careful and thoughtful decision to put [[:de:vulva]] on the front page of de:wp with a picture was a clear failure of community judgement sufficient to justify the imposition of a filter from outside.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
A cookie-based "hide all images"/"show all images" toggle clearly visible in the toolbar at the top of pages. together with ... I'd be interested in any arguments that might be made against such a proposal.
How about the fact that newspaper websites regularly include shocking images of violence and death on their main pages and have few complaints as they rely on editorial control rather than built-in software tricks? This is a solution looking for a problem, the key argument has always been that there is scant evidence that the public are asking for these options and our beloved projects already have a great reputation for good editorial judgement/consensus.
Media like the recent videos of Gaddafi's death customarily come with an explicit warning that they include graphic content, and that viewer discretion is advised. Such warnings are also given before such images are broadcast. Viewer discretion is what the image filter is about.
Incidentally, the referendum results by project were posted yesterday, and can be viewed at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Results/Votes_by_proj...
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Results/Votes_by_proj...
Andreas
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com wrote:
What approaches do you have in mind, that would empower the editors and the readers, aside from an hide/show all solution?
1) Add a "collapsible" [*] parameter to the File: syntax, e.g. [[File:Lemonparty.jpg|collapsible]]. 2) When present, add a notice [*] to the top of the page enabling the reader to collapse collapsible images (and to make that the default setting for all pages if desired). 3) When absent, do nothing.
[*] The exact UI language here could be discussed at great length, but is irrelevant to the basic operating principles.
Advantages: * Communities without consensus to use collapsible media don't have to until/unless such a consensus emerges. It can be governed by normal community policy. * One community's judgments do not affect another community's. Standards can evolve and change over time and in the cultural context. * Readers of projects like Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedia (which are already collapsing images) who are currently not empowered to choose between "collapsed by default" vs. "expanded by default" would be enabled to do so. * Readers only encounter the notice on pages that actually have content where it's likely to be of any use. * Respects the editorial judgment of the community, as opposed to introducing a parallel track of "controversial content assessment". Doesn't pretend that a technical solution alone can solve social and editorial challenges. * Easy to implement, easy to iterate on, easy to disable if there are issues.
Disadvantages: * Doesn't help with the specific issues of Wikimedia Commons (what's educational scope) and with issues like sorting images of masturbation with electric toothbrushes into the toothbrush category. Those are arguably separate issues that should be discussed separately. * Without further information about what our readers want and don't want, we're reinforcing pre-existing biases (whichever they may be) of each editorial community, so we should also consider ways to continually better understand our audience.
Erik
Am 23.10.2011 00:13, schrieb Erik Moeller:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com wrote:
What approaches do you have in mind, that would empower the editors and the readers, aside from an hide/show all solution?
- Add a "collapsible" [*] parameter to the File: syntax, e.g.
[[File:Lemonparty.jpg|collapsible]]. 2) When present, add a notice [*] to the top of the page enabling the reader to collapse collapsible images (and to make that the default setting for all pages if desired). 3) When absent, do nothing.
[*] The exact UI language here could be discussed at great length, but is irrelevant to the basic operating principles.
Advantages:
- Communities without consensus to use collapsible media don't have to
until/unless such a consensus emerges. It can be governed by normal community policy.
- One community's judgments do not affect another community's.
Standards can evolve and change over time and in the cultural context.
- Readers of projects like Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedia (which are
already collapsing images) who are currently not empowered to choose between "collapsed by default" vs. "expanded by default" would be enabled to do so.
- Readers only encounter the notice on pages that actually have
content where it's likely to be of any use.
- Respects the editorial judgment of the community, as opposed to
introducing a parallel track of "controversial content assessment". Doesn't pretend that a technical solution alone can solve social and editorial challenges.
- Easy to implement, easy to iterate on, easy to disable if there are issues.
Disadvantages:
- Doesn't help with the specific issues of Wikimedia Commons (what's
educational scope) and with issues like sorting images of masturbation with electric toothbrushes into the toothbrush category. Those are arguably separate issues that should be discussed separately.
- Without further information about what our readers want and don't
want, we're reinforcing pre-existing biases (whichever they may be) of each editorial community, so we should also consider ways to continually better understand our audience.
Erik
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Isn't that the same as putting some images inside the category "inappropriate content"? Will it not leave the impression to the reader that "we" think that this is something not anybody should see? Can it be easily used by providers to filter out this images?
I would add the answers to this questions to "disadvantages".
nya~
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com wrote:
Isn't that the same as putting some images inside the category "inappropriate content"? Will it not leave the impression to the reader that "we" think that this is something not anybody should see? Can it be easily used by providers to filter out this images?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cen... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Bad_image_list http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_men
Simply in the process of doing our normal editorial work, we're already providing a number of ways to identify content in the broad area of "someone might be upset of this" or even in specific categories, and of course censorship also often relies on deriving characteristics from the content itself without any need for additional metadata (keyword filters, ranging from simple to sophisticated; image pattern matching, etc.).
It's not clear that a low-granularity identification of content that some editors, in some projects, have identified as potentially objectionable to some readers, for a wide variety of different reasons, adds meaningfully to the existing toolset of censors. A censor who's going to nuke all that content from orbit would probably be equally happy to just block everything that has the word "sex" in it; in other words, they are a reckless censor, and they will apply a reckless degree of censorship irrespective of our own actions.
Erik
Am 23.10.2011 02:00, schrieb Erik Moeller:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com wrote:
Isn't that the same as putting some images inside the category "inappropriate content"? Will it not leave the impression to the reader that "we" think that this is something not anybody should see? Can it be easily used by providers to filter out this images?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cen... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Bad_image_list http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_men
Simply in the process of doing our normal editorial work, we're already providing a number of ways to identify content in the broad area of "someone might be upset of this" or even in specific categories, and of course censorship also often relies on deriving characteristics from the content itself without any need for additional metadata (keyword filters, ranging from simple to sophisticated; image pattern matching, etc.).
It's not clear that a low-granularity identification of content that some editors, in some projects, have identified as potentially objectionable to some readers, for a wide variety of different reasons, adds meaningfully to the existing toolset of censors. A censor who's going to nuke all that content from orbit would probably be equally happy to just block everything that has the word "sex" in it; in other words, they are a reckless censor, and they will apply a reckless degree of censorship irrespective of our own actions.
Erik
That is an risky assumption. Nothing is easier then to identify flagged images and to remove them, while the typical users think that anything is fine. A simple stream filter would remove such images, without the need for the clever censor to remove the whole page. Shutting down Wikipedia as whole is very unlikely due to social pressure. Suppressing only some parts of it is a completely different story. This (knowingly) works already in China, Vietnam, Taiwan and other countries. Some pages are blocked, listed by the authority. It would be in great support for them to exclude content that we flagged as controversial. The misuse potential is relatively high.
In comparison to that the filter WereSpielChequers proposed is a much saver solution. It also does not intervene with the editorial process (for example: edit wars over flagging). The only doubt would be, if we could get this running, since it needs a relatively high amount of users of the feature, that also have to login.
Back to your proposal. How is it any different from putting all so called maybe offensive images in the category "category:maybe offensive image"? The only difference i can see, is, that it is now project and article based categorizing.
nya~
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 03:13:22PM -0700, Erik Moeller wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com wrote:
What approaches do you have in mind, that would empower the editors and the readers, aside from an hide/show all solution?
- Add a "collapsible" [*] parameter to the File: syntax, e.g.
[[File:Lemonparty.jpg|collapsible]]. 2) When present, add a notice [*] to the top of the page enabling the reader to collapse collapsible images (and to make that the default setting for all pages if desired). 3) When absent, do nothing.
Unlike an image filter, I project that this would have limited incidental usage, rather than having a sweeping effect across all pages.
There are still NPOV issues with having the function; but those issues can be solved on the spot, using consensus, at the single image on a single page on a single wiki level.
(This as opposed to majority rule across all wikis which many others have proposed ).
Because it is a local effect and subject to human common sense (aka. IAR) , unwanted emergent side effects ("collateral damage") are much less likely, or at worst limited in scope.
This as opposed to rigid software logic, which will often have side effects and loopholes ("bugs" and "exploits" in hacker parlance).
Due to the incidental nature, it also would not be viable to harvest data for use in third party filters.
In short, this seems like a fairly good wiki-like solution. :-) It's not perfect, but nothing is. It seems to strike the right balance. I could certainly live with it.
sincerely, Kim Bruning
And another one, sorry, I cannot find the mail in which it was proposed. But generally I think a hide/show-all solution would be acceptable to everybode. There is still a lot of bad blood going around. And it would certainly be easier to implement it referring to technical reasons of low bandwith, than with morally objectionable pictures.. but still, I think this would meet all criteria of the German community.
regards,
d/sp
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Dirk Franke <dirkingofranke@googlemail.com
wrote:
With that in mind, I would humbly propose that we kill with fire at
this point the idea of a category-based image filtering system.
+1
d/sp
On 22 October 2011 20:58, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
If not, would you be interested in organizing some community discussion on whether there are solutions within the scope of the resolution that the dewiki community would find acceptable, or whether the prevailing view is that the resolution itself should be scrapped altogether?
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C... , the official translation of the de:wp poll, says:
"Both the opinion poll itself and its proposal were accepted. In contrary to the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, personal image filters should not be introduced in German-speaking wikipedia and categories for these filters may not be created for files locally stored on this wikipedia. 260 of 306 users (84.97 percent) accepted the poll as to be formally valid. 357 of 414 users (86.23 percent) do not agree to the introduction of a personal image filter and categories for filtering in German wikipedia."
This would appear to indicate the opposition is to *any* personal image filter per the Board resolution, and the category-based proposal additionally as an example of such rather than as the main topic of the vote. I think that says "should be scrapped" pretty blindingly clearly.
Unless nuances of the translation are inaccurate - is this the case? Do you see wiggle room in the original German phrasing?
I suspect (I have no direct evidence) that the glaring lack of the "should we actually have this at all?" question on the referendum generated a backlash. It's not clear to me how to correct this mistake - I fully accept and understand the process by which the referendum questions were generated (quickly dashed-off by three people without running them past anyone else), and that there was no intent whatsoever to spin the result - but from the outside view, having people take them as intended in bad faith is, unfortunately, entirely natural.
I also have to note that Sue's blog post was profoundly ill-considered at best - it has left a lot of people feeling highly insulted, and reads like an official staff stance to ignore opposition to the filter. Using the tone argument was, I think, the fatal element - when the powerful side of a dispute pulls out the tone argument, it may not actually neatly divide the powerless side; instead, the claimed non-targets may get just as offended by it as the claimed targets (and this is what happened), and take it as the nuclear option it is (and this is what has happened).
It is not clear in what world any of this was ever a good idea.
- d.
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:16 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This would appear to indicate the opposition is to *any* personal image filter per the Board resolution, and the category-based proposal additionally as an example of such rather than as the main topic of the vote. I think that says "should be scrapped" pretty blindingly clearly.
The literal translation of what was being voted on:
"Persönliche Bildfilter (Filter, die illustrierende Dateien anhand von Kategorien der Wikipedia verbergen und vom Leser an- und abgeschaltet werden können, vgl. den vorläufigen [[Entwurf]] der Wikimedia Foundation) sollen entgegen dem Beschluss des Kuratoriums der Wikimedia Foundation in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia nicht eingeführt werden und es sollen auch keine Filterkategorien für auf dieser Wikipedia lokal gespeicherte Dateien angelegt werden."
"Personal image filters (filters, which hide illustrating files based on categories and which can be turned on and off by the reader, see the preliminary [[draft]] by the Wikimedia Foundation) should, contrary to the Board's decision, not be introduced in the German Wikipedia, and no filter categories should be created for locally uploaded content."
The [[draft]] link pointed to http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Personal_image_filter
So it was pretty closely tied to the mock-ups, just like the "referendum" was.
Erik
Am 22.10.2011 22:21, schrieb Erik Moeller:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:16 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This would appear to indicate the opposition is to *any* personal image filter per the Board resolution, and the category-based proposal additionally as an example of such rather than as the main topic of the vote. I think that says "should be scrapped" pretty blindingly clearly.
The literal translation of what was being voted on:
"Persönliche Bildfilter (Filter, die illustrierende Dateien anhand von Kategorien der Wikipedia verbergen und vom Leser an- und abgeschaltet werden können, vgl. den vorläufigen [[Entwurf]] der Wikimedia Foundation) sollen entgegen dem Beschluss des Kuratoriums der Wikimedia Foundation in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia nicht eingeführt werden und es sollen auch keine Filterkategorien für auf dieser Wikipedia lokal gespeicherte Dateien angelegt werden."
"Personal image filters (filters, which hide illustrating files based on categories and which can be turned on and off by the reader, see the preliminary [[draft]] by the Wikimedia Foundation) should, contrary to the Board's decision, not be introduced in the German Wikipedia, and no filter categories should be created for locally uploaded content."
The [[draft]] link pointed to http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Personal_image_filter
So it was pretty closely tied to the mock-ups, just like the "referendum" was.
Erik
It is strongly worded against any filtering based on categories. The referendum proposals where only mentioned as an example, since it illustrated an example. Please refrain from weakening the point the poll made. Otherwise we will have to set up another poll with very strong wording like: "Es soll verboten werden Inhalte jeglicher Art in irgendeiner Weise zu Filtern, wenn dabei nicht alle Inhalte gleich behandelt werden."
"It shall be forbidden to filter content of any kind by any method, if it does not treat every content as equal."
nya~
Am 22.10.2011 22:16, schrieb David Gerard:
Unless nuances of the translation are inaccurate - is this the case? Do you see wiggle room in the original German phrasing?
There is no room for interpretation. It clearly says that no category based filtering of any illustrative media will be accepted.
"Filters, for illustrative media based on categories that can be enabled or disabled by the readers, ..."
"Filter, die illustrierende Dateien anhand von Kategorien der Wikipedia verbergen und vom Leser an- und abgeschaltet werden können, ..."
This also includes that there will be no "filter-categorization" of any media stored inside the local project.
"... and there shall not be any filter categories for files/media stored localy on this Wikipedia."
"... und es sollen auch keine Filterkategorien für auf dieser Wikipedia lokal gespeicherte Dateien angelegt werden."
I suspect (I have no direct evidence) that the glaring lack of the "should we actually have this at all?" question on the referendum generated a backlash. It's not clear to me how to correct this mistake
- I fully accept and understand the process by which the referendum
questions were generated (quickly dashed-off by three people without running them past anyone else), and that there was no intent whatsoever to spin the result - but from the outside view, having people take them as intended in bad faith is, unfortunately, entirely natural.
Correctly. The referendum itself was described as manipulative wording. This does not only apply to the DE community. Here are some examples:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Caf%C3%A9/Portal/Archivo/Noticias/201...
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Image_filter_referend...
I also have to note that Sue's blog post was profoundly ill-considered at best - it has left a lot of people feeling highly insulted, and reads like an official staff stance to ignore opposition to the filter. Using the tone argument was, I think, the fatal element - when the powerful side of a dispute pulls out the tone argument, it may not actually neatly divide the powerless side; instead, the claimed non-targets may get just as offended by it as the claimed targets (and this is what happened), and take it as the nuclear option it is (and this is what has happened).
It is not clear in what world any of this was ever a good idea.
- d.
It was clearly insulting to everyone that participated inside the opposition, just being ignored, despite the arguments and project policies.
It would be even more insulting to ask the german community to work out a filter proposal. All you can expect is white bag or an empty page. The decision is clear: No filter at all!
(filter = selective display of content)
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 21:16 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
"Both the opinion poll itself and its proposal were accepted. In contrary to the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, personal image filters should not be introduced in German-speaking wikipedia and categories for these filters may not be created for files locally stored on this wikipedia. 260 of 306 users (84.97 percent) accepted the poll as to be formally valid. 357 of 414 users (86.23 percent) do not agree to the introduction of a personal image filter and categories for filtering in German wikipedia."
I wanted to say this for a long time, and now seems like a good opportunity. I see this as a tyranny of the majority. I understand that a large majority of German Wikipedia editors are against the filter. But even if 99.99% of editors are against the filter, well, it is opt-in and they don't have to use it. But why would they prevent me from using it, if I want to use it?
On 22 October 2011 22:23, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
I wanted to say this for a long time, and now seems like a good opportunity. I see this as a tyranny of the majority. I understand that a large majority of German Wikipedia editors are against the filter. But even if 99.99% of editors are against the filter, well, it is opt-in and they don't have to use it. But why would they prevent me from using it, if I want to use it?
Because a non-neutral filter would have to warp the project around itself to work at all, as has been detailed at length here (and everywhere). Thus, making the option available would carry significant side-effects.
A neutral all-or-nothing image filter would not have such side effects (and would also neatly help low bandwidth usage).
- d.
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 22:27 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
On 22 October 2011 22:23, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
I wanted to say this for a long time, and now seems like a good opportunity. I see this as a tyranny of the majority. I understand that a large majority of German Wikipedia editors are against the filter. But even if 99.99% of editors are against the filter, well, it is opt-in and they don't have to use it. But why would they prevent me from using it, if I want to use it?
Because a non-neutral filter would have to warp the project around itself to work at all, as has been detailed at length here (and
I have to admit I haven't been following the entire discussion, but I don't see why would that have to be the case. Plus, it is my understanding that German Wikipedians are opposed to any implementation of the filter, even if one could be made that wouldn't warp the project around itself.
A neutral all-or-nothing image filter would not have such side effects (and would also neatly help low bandwidth usage).
And also be completely useless.
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:27 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
A neutral all-or-nothing image filter would not have such side effects (and would also neatly help low bandwidth usage).
It would also make the project useless. I don't want to see the 0.01% (yes, rhetorical statistics again) images of medical procedures, and I'd avoid seeing the (much higher) X% of images that are NSFW while in public. That does not mean that I want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and not see any images whatsoever.
Given the choice, I would not use such a filter.
We have the technology and the capacity to allow users to make nuanced decisions about what they do and don't want to see. Why is this a problem?
Am 23.10.2011 17:24, schrieb Andrew Garrett:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:27 AM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
A neutral all-or-nothing image filter would not have such side effects (and would also neatly help low bandwidth usage).
It would also make the project useless. I don't want to see the 0.01% (yes, rhetorical statistics again) images of medical procedures, and I'd avoid seeing the (much higher) X% of images that are NSFW while in public. That does not mean that I want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and not see any images whatsoever.
Given the choice, I would not use such a filter.
We have the technology and the capacity to allow users to make nuanced decisions about what they do and don't want to see. Why is this a problem?
At some time i should set up an record player, looping the same thing over and over again, or set up a FAQ.
We don't have a technology to do this. It comes down to personal preferences of some editors that do the categorization. Some might agree with their choice, others won't. But who are we to judge about content or over other people and their personal preferences and taste? Thats what we start to do, as soon we introduce "controversial/offensive-category" based filtering. That was never the mission of the project and hopefully it will never be.
nya~
On 23/10/11 16:24, Andrew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:27 AM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
A neutral all-or-nothing image filter would not have such side effects (and would also neatly help low bandwidth usage).
It would also make the project useless. I don't want to see the 0.01% (yes, rhetorical statistics again) images of medical procedures, and I'd avoid seeing the (much higher) X% of images that are NSFW while in public. That does not mean that I want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and not see any images whatsoever.
Given the choice, I would not use such a filter.
We have the technology and the capacity to allow users to make nuanced decisions about what they do and don't want to see. Why is this a problem?
I think this has been dealt with before.
Firstly, images should only be in articles to which they are directly relevant -- we should be able to rely on the community to remove images which are irrelevant to articles. This is no more, but also no less, reasonable an expectation than to expect them to keep images correctly categorized in sufficient detail to allow your personal preferences to be catered for.
Secondly, the title and context alone is usually enough to suggest what topic an article is about.
Just to give an example: I'm pretty convinced that if I click on, say, the article for [[Stoke Poges]], that I will not be presented with an image that offends my personal sensibilities. Likewise with [[Calcium]] or [[Astrolabe]]. On the other hand, if I were offended by medical images, I might think twice about viewing [[Splenectomy]] or [[Autopsy]]. (Note that all of these examples are sight-unseen -- if I'm wrong about any of this, and, say, [[Calcium]] contains an unpleasant image, please let me know.)
Given that, if you are concerned about distressing medical images, it seems obvious to me that you can get almost 100% effectiveness at preventing this by just turnin on the global image filter before browsing Wikipedia on medical topics. If you believe the pictures are safe to view, based on the image captions, one click turns them back on again.
The same applies to browsing Wikipedia for articles that might contain images that might offend your religious sensibilities, or non-work-safe images.
If you're not sure about the topic of an article (what's an [[Ursprache]]? Could it be some kind of nasty-looking injury?), you can play safe and turn the filter on, and be absolutely 100% sure of not being offended, or leave it off and still be _almost_ sure of not being offended because most articles do not contain images that offend anyone.
The rest of the time, just leave it turned off -- which is also one click.
Where would the difficulty be in that?
- Neil
Am 22.10.2011 23:23, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 21:16 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
"Both the opinion poll itself and its proposal were accepted. In contrary to the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, personal image filters should not be introduced in German-speaking wikipedia and categories for these filters may not be created for files locally stored on this wikipedia. 260 of 306 users (84.97 percent) accepted the poll as to be formally valid. 357 of 414 users (86.23 percent) do not agree to the introduction of a personal image filter and categories for filtering in German wikipedia."
I wanted to say this for a long time, and now seems like a good opportunity. I see this as a tyranny of the majority. I understand that a large majority of German Wikipedia editors are against the filter. But even if 99.99% of editors are against the filter, well, it is opt-in and they don't have to use it. But why would they prevent me from using it, if I want to use it?
Why? Because it is against the basic rules of the project. It is intended to discriminate content. To judge about it and to represent you this judgment before you have even looked at it. Additionally it can be easily exploited by your local provider to hide labeled content, so that you don't have any way to view it, even if you want to.
If you want a filter so badly, then install parental software, close your eyes or don't visit the page. That is up to you. That is your freedom, your judgment and not the judgment of others.
PS: If it wasn't at this place i would call your contribution trolling. But feel free to read the arguments: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C...
nya~
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 23:35 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Am 22.10.2011 23:23, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 21:16 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
"Both the opinion poll itself and its proposal were accepted. In contrary to the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, personal image filters should not be introduced in German-speaking wikipedia and categories for these filters may not be created for files locally stored on this wikipedia. 260 of 306 users (84.97 percent) accepted the poll as to be formally valid. 357 of 414 users (86.23 percent) do not agree to the introduction of a personal image filter and categories for filtering in German wikipedia."
I wanted to say this for a long time, and now seems like a good opportunity. I see this as a tyranny of the majority. I understand that a large majority of German Wikipedia editors are against the filter. But even if 99.99% of editors are against the filter, well, it is opt-in and they don't have to use it. But why would they prevent me from using it, if I want to use it?
Why? Because it is against the basic rules of the project. It is intended to discriminate content. To judge about it and to represent you
No, it is intended to let people discriminate content themselves if they want, which is a huge difference.
this judgment before you have even looked at it. Additionally it can be
If I feel that this judgment is inadequate, I will turn the filter off. Either way, it is My Problem. Not Your Problem.
easily exploited by your local provider to hide labeled content, so that you don't have any way to view it, even if you want to.
Depending on the way it is implemented, it may be somewhat difficult for a provider to do that. Such systems probably already exist on some websites, and I am not aware of my provider using them to hide labelled content. And even if my provider would start doing that, I could simply use Wikipedia over https.
And if providers across the world start abusing the filter, perhaps then the filter could be turned off. I just don't see this as a reasonable possibility.
If you want a filter so badly, then install parental software, close
It is my understanding that parental software is often too overarching or otherwise inadequate.
your eyes or don't visit the page. That is up to you. That is your
If I close my eyes or don't visit the page, I won't be able to read the content of the page.
PS: If it wasn't at this place i would call your contribution trolling.
It certainly isn't very helpful to good discussion that now I know you would call it trolling were we discussing it somewhere else.
But feel free to read the arguments: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C...
It seems to me that the arguments are mostly about a filter that would be turned on by default. Most of them seem to evaporate when applied to an opt-in filter.
Am 23.10.2011 08:49, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 23:35 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Why? Because it is against the basic rules of the project. It is intended to discriminate content. To judge about it and to represent you
No, it is intended to let people discriminate content themselves if they want, which is a huge difference.
If I feel that this judgment is inadequate, I will turn the filter off. Either way, it is My Problem. Not Your Problem.
It is not the user of the filter that decides *what* is hidden or not. That isn't his decision. If it is the case that the filter does not meet his expectations and he does not use it, then we gained nothing, despite the massive effort taken by us to flag all the images. You should know that we already have a massive categorization delay on commons.
easily exploited by your local provider to hide labeled content, so that you don't have any way to view it, even if you want to.
Depending on the way it is implemented, it may be somewhat difficult for a provider to do that. Such systems probably already exist on some websites, and I am not aware of my provider using them to hide labelled content. And even if my provider would start doing that, I could simply use Wikipedia over https.
If your provider is a bit clever he would block https and filter the rest. An relatively easy job to do. Additionally most people would not know the difference between https and http, using the default http version.
And if providers across the world start abusing the filter, perhaps then the filter could be turned off. I just don't see this as a reasonable possibility.
Well, we don't have to agree on this point. I think that this is possible with very little effort. Especially since images aren't provided inside the same document and are not served using https.
If you want a filter so badly, then install parental software, close
It is my understanding that parental software is often too overarching or otherwise inadequate.
Same would go for a category/preset based filter. You and I mentioned it above, that it isn't necessary better from the perspective of the user, leading to few users, but wasting our time over it.
your eyes or don't visit the page. That is up to you. That is your
If I close my eyes or don't visit the page, I won't be able to read the content of the page.
That is the point where a hide all/nothing filter would jump in. He would let you read the page without any worries. No faulty categorized image would show up and you still would have the option to show images in which you are interested.
But feel free to read the arguments: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C...
It seems to me that the arguments are mostly about a filter that would be turned on by default. Most of them seem to evaporate when applied to an opt-in filter.
None of the arguments is based on a filter that would be enabled as default. It is particularly about any filter that uses categorization to distinguish the good from evil. It's about the damage such an approach would do the project and even to users that doesn't want or need the feature.
The German poll made clear, that not any category based filter will be allowed, since category based filtering is unavoidably non-neutral and a censorship tool.
nya~
On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 10:31 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Am 23.10.2011 08:49, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 23:35 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Why? Because it is against the basic rules of the project. It is intended to discriminate content. To judge about it and to represent you
No, it is intended to let people discriminate content themselves if they want, which is a huge difference.
If I feel that this judgment is inadequate, I will turn the filter off. Either way, it is My Problem. Not Your Problem.
It is not the user of the filter that decides *what* is hidden or not. That isn't his decision. If it is the case that the filter does not meet his expectations and he does not use it, then we gained nothing, despite the massive effort taken by us to flag all the images. You should know
Who is this "we" you are talking about? No one is going to force anyone to categorize images. If some people want to categorize images, and if their effort turns out to be in vain, again that is Their Problem and not Your Problem.
easily exploited by your local provider to hide labeled content, so that you don't have any way to view it, even if you want to.
Depending on the way it is implemented, it may be somewhat difficult for a provider to do that. Such systems probably already exist on some websites, and I am not aware of my provider using them to hide labelled content. And even if my provider would start doing that, I could simply use Wikipedia over https.
If your provider is a bit clever he would block https and filter the rest. An relatively easy job to do. Additionally most people would not know the difference between https and http, using the default http version.
If my provider ever blocks https, I am changing my provider. If in some country all providers block https, these people have bigger problems than images on Wikipedia (that would likely be forbidden anyway).
And if providers across the world start abusing the filter, perhaps then the filter could be turned off. I just don't see this as a reasonable possibility.
Well, we don't have to agree on this point. I think that this is possible with very little effort. Especially since images aren't provided inside the same document and are not served using https.
Images should be served using https anyway.
If you want a filter so badly, then install parental software, close
It is my understanding that parental software is often too overarching or otherwise inadequate.
Same would go for a category/preset based filter. You and I mentioned it above, that it isn't necessary better from the perspective of the user, leading to few users, but wasting our time over it.
I believe a filter that is adjusted specifically to Wikimedia projects would work much better than parental software that has to work across the entire Internet. Anyway, I don't see why would anyone have to waste time over it.
your eyes or don't visit the page. That is up to you. That is your
If I close my eyes or don't visit the page, I won't be able to read the content of the page.
That is the point where a hide all/nothing filter would jump in. He would let you read the page without any worries. No faulty categorized image would show up and you still would have the option to show images in which you are interested.
If I would use a hide all/nothing filter, I wouldn't be able to see non-offensive relevant images by default. No one is going to use that.
But feel free to read the arguments: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C...
It seems to me that the arguments are mostly about a filter that would be turned on by default. Most of them seem to evaporate when applied to an opt-in filter.
None of the arguments is based on a filter that would be enabled as default. It is particularly about any filter that uses categorization to distinguish the good from evil. It's about the damage such an approach would do the project and even to users that doesn't want or need the feature.
That is absolutely not true. For example, the first argument:
"The Wikipedia was not founded in order to hide information but to make it accessible. Hiding files may reduce important information that is presented in a Wikipedia article. This could limit any kind of enlightenment and perception of context. Examples: articles about artists, artworks and medical issues may intentionally or without intention of the reader lose substantial parts of their information. The aim to present a topic neutral and in its entirety would be jeopardized by this."
This is mostly true, but completely irrelevant for an opt-in filter.
The German poll made clear, that not any category based filter will be allowed, since category based filtering is unavoidably non-neutral and a censorship tool.
Who the hell are you to forbid me or allow me to use a piece of software? I want to use this category based filter, even if it is unavoidably non-neutral and a censorship tool. And now what?
Am 23.10.2011 17:19, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 10:31 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Am 23.10.2011 08:49, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 23:35 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Why? Because it is against the basic rules of the project. It is intended to discriminate content. To judge about it and to represent you
No, it is intended to let people discriminate content themselves if they want, which is a huge difference.
If I feel that this judgment is inadequate, I will turn the filter off. Either way, it is My Problem. Not Your Problem.
It is not the user of the filter that decides *what* is hidden or not. That isn't his decision. If it is the case that the filter does not meet his expectations and he does not use it, then we gained nothing, despite the massive effort taken by us to flag all the images. You should know
Who is this "we" you are talking about? No one is going to force anyone to categorize images. If some people want to categorize images, and if their effort turns out to be in vain, again that is Their Problem and not Your Problem.
It is wasted time for them as well as for us, since they are most likely editors that are part of "us". If they waste their time on categorization then it is lost time that could be spend on article improvement or invested in better alternatives that are illustrative as well as not offending.
easily exploited by your local provider to hide labeled content, so that you don't have any way to view it, even if you want to.
Depending on the way it is implemented, it may be somewhat difficult for a provider to do that. Such systems probably already exist on some websites, and I am not aware of my provider using them to hide labelled content. And even if my provider would start doing that, I could simply use Wikipedia over https.
If your provider is a bit clever he would block https and filter the rest. An relatively easy job to do. Additionally most people would not know the difference between https and http, using the default http version.
If my provider ever blocks https, I am changing my provider. If in some country all providers block https, these people have bigger problems than images on Wikipedia (that would likely be forbidden anyway).
You can do that. But there are many regions inside the world that depend on one local provider that is even regulated by the local goverment/regime/... . Since the filter was proposed as a tool to help expanding Wikipedia inside this weak regions, it could be as well counterproductive. For the weak regions as also for stronger regions. Are you willed to implement such a feature without thinking about possible outcome?
And if providers across the world start abusing the filter, perhaps then the filter could be turned off. I just don't see this as a reasonable possibility.
Well, we don't have to agree on this point. I think that this is possible with very little effort. Especially since images aren't provided inside the same document and are not served using https.
Images should be served using https anyway.
It isn't done for performance reasons. It is much more expansive to handle encrypted content, since caching isn't possible and Wikipedia strongly depends on caching. It would cost a lot of money to do so. (Effort vs Result)
If you want a filter so badly, then install parental software, close
It is my understanding that parental software is often too overarching or otherwise inadequate.
Same would go for a category/preset based filter. You and I mentioned it above, that it isn't necessary better from the perspective of the user, leading to few users, but wasting our time over it.
I believe a filter that is adjusted specifically to Wikimedia projects would work much better than parental software that has to work across the entire Internet. Anyway, I don't see why would anyone have to waste time over it.
That is a curious point. People that are so offended by Wikipedia content, that they don't want to read it, visit the WWW with all it's much darker corners without a personal filter software? Why does it sound so one-sided?
your eyes or don't visit the page. That is up to you. That is your
If I close my eyes or don't visit the page, I won't be able to read the content of the page.
That is the point where a hide all/nothing filter would jump in. He would let you read the page without any worries. No faulty categorized image would show up and you still would have the option to show images in which you are interested.
If I would use a hide all/nothing filter, I wouldn't be able to see non-offensive relevant images by default. No one is going to use that.
It is meant as a tool that you activate as soon you want to read about controversial content. If you have arachnophobia and want to inform yourself about spiders, then you would activate it. If you have no problem with other topics (e.g. physics, landscapes,...) then you could gladly deactivate it. That is your choice and in that point the tool would support you.
Additionally you will have to consider the blurred image approach. It would not hide the image entirely. It's just strongly blurred enough to guess what it could be, but not so unsharp that you recognize nothing. Hovering over the image would make it visible at this moment. If the filter is off, all images would stay unblurred.
But feel free to read the arguments: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C...
It seems to me that the arguments are mostly about a filter that would be turned on by default. Most of them seem to evaporate when applied to an opt-in filter.
None of the arguments is based on a filter that would be enabled as default. It is particularly about any filter that uses categorization to distinguish the good from evil. It's about the damage such an approach would do the project and even to users that doesn't want or need the feature.
That is absolutely not true. For example, the first argument:
"The Wikipedia was not founded in order to hide information but to make it accessible. Hiding files may reduce important information that is presented in a Wikipedia article. This could limit any kind of enlightenment and perception of context. Examples: articles about artists, artworks and medical issues may intentionally or without intention of the reader lose substantial parts of their information. The aim to present a topic neutral and in its entirety would be jeopardized by this."
This is mostly true, but completely irrelevant for an opt-in filter.
As long the filter stays opt-in it could be acceptable. But who ensures that it will be so? If you only have access to the internet at an local institution and enforces an opt-in with enabled filter, then you have lost.
The German poll made clear, that not any category based filter will be allowed, since category based filtering is unavoidably non-neutral and a censorship tool.
Who the hell are you to forbid me or allow me to use a piece of software? I want to use this category based filter, even if it is unavoidably non-neutral and a censorship tool. And now what?
We are the majority of the contributers that make up the community. We decided that it won't be good for the project and it's goals. We don't forbid you to use an *own* filter. But we don't want a filter to be imposed at the project, because we think, that it is not for the benefit of the project. Point.
nya~
On 23.10.2011 19:05, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
The German poll made clear, that not any category based filter will be allowed, since category based filtering is unavoidably non-neutral and a censorship tool.
Who the hell are you to forbid me or allow me to use a piece of software? I want to use this category based filter, even if it is unavoidably non-neutral and a censorship tool. And now what?
We are the majority of the contributers that make up the community. We decided that it won't be good for the project and it's goals. We don't forbid you to use an *own* filter. But we don't want a filter to be imposed at the project, because we think, that it is not for the benefit of the project. Point.
nya~
Which project? de.wikipedia or Commons?
If the filter will be applied to Commons, I assume that de.wikipedia must be conform with the decision of the other communities.
Ilario
Am 23.10.2011 19:32, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:
On 23.10.2011 19:05, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
The German poll made clear, that not any category based filter will be allowed, since category based filtering is unavoidably non-neutral and a censorship tool.
Who the hell are you to forbid me or allow me to use a piece of software? I want to use this category based filter, even if it is unavoidably non-neutral and a censorship tool. And now what?
We are the majority of the contributers that make up the community. We decided that it won't be good for the project and it's goals. We don't forbid you to use an *own* filter. But we don't want a filter to be imposed at the project, because we think, that it is not for the benefit of the project. Point.
nya~
Which project? de.wikipedia or Commons?
If the filter will be applied to Commons, I assume that de.wikipedia must be conform with the decision of the other communities.
Ilario
That does not mean that the German community is willed to show a button on it's pages to enable it. It will just be disabled and all flagged/marked/categorized/discriminated/... images will be copied from commons to the local project to remove the flagging, if necessary.
Alternatively the project could think about "forking", which would remove the yearly hassle from the German verein to calculate the spendings and to give away the corresponding money to the foundation...
But it's nice to see that the per project-results of the filter are released. It is as expected. The average for importance reaches from 3,34 to 8,17 on a scale from 0 to 10. That means, that single projects have a very different viewpoint on this topic and a very different kind of need.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Results/en#Appendix_2
There is no way that this result could justify the approach to impose an global image filter on all projects. We also have to ask the question: What will happen to commons, which is shared by all projects?
nya~
* Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Who is this "we" you are talking about? No one is going to force anyone to categorize images. If some people want to categorize images, and if their effort turns out to be in vain, again that is Their Problem and not Your Problem.
When your filtering or categorization choices affect others in any way then your choices have moral and ethical implications that people find it hard to ignore. Few people would stand idle by when they learn you flag images they find very appropriate as inappropriate. You can claim not standing idle by is their choice; and you would be mistaken.
Who the hell are you to forbid me or allow me to use a piece of software? I want to use this category based filter, even if it is unavoidably non-neutral and a censorship tool. And now what?
Nobody is arguing that you shouldn't be able to use some software.
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 08:49:42AM +0200, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
It is my understanding that parental software is often too overarching or otherwise inadequate.
... and this despite (very likely) having a larger budget than the foundation ;-)
There's a reason the software is inadequate, and that is because filtering is a hard problem.
If we're smart, we'll try to do something that is slightly different from actual filtering, to get around what I'm starting to suspect is something of a mathematical pothole in our way.
sincerely, Kim Bruning
I completely agree :)
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rswrote:
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 21:16 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
"Both the opinion poll itself and its proposal were accepted. In contrary to the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, personal image filters should not be introduced in German-speaking wikipedia and categories for these filters may not be created for files locally stored on this wikipedia. 260 of 306 users (84.97 percent) accepted the poll as to be formally valid. 357 of 414 users (86.23 percent) do not agree to the introduction of a personal image filter and categories for filtering in German wikipedia."
I wanted to say this for a long time, and now seems like a good opportunity. I see this as a tyranny of the majority. I understand that a large majority of German Wikipedia editors are against the filter. But even if 99.99% of editors are against the filter, well, it is opt-in and they don't have to use it. But why would they prevent me from using it, if I want to use it?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 23 October 2011 10:01, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
I completely agree :)
So you can address my answer, even as Nikola didn't quite.
- d.
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Dirk Franke dirkingofranke@googlemail.com wrote:
And people who talked privately about a fork for some time, start to
think
and say it loud.
Thanks for the update, Dirk. I think it's good that people are seriously discussing what it would mean to fork and how it would be done. Forking the project if WMF policies or decisions are considered unacceptable is one of the fundamental ways in which Wikimedia projects are different from most of the web; it's a key freedom, one which should be exercised judiciously but which should be preserved and protected nonetheless.
With that said, I also think it's important to remember that Sue has explicitly affirmed that the development of any technical solution would be done in partnership with the community, including people who've expressed strong opposition to what's been discussed to date. [1]
The vote in German Wikipedia, and most of the discussions to date, have focused on the specific ideas and mock-ups that were presented as part of the referendum. But as Sue has made clear, those ideas and mock-ups are just that, and the Board resolution creates room for different ideas as well, ranging from the simple (disabling/blurring all images) to the complex (like a category-based filtering system).
Some of these ideas are explored here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Next_steps/en#Potenti...
Is there a similar brainstorming page on dewiki already? If not, would you be interested in organizing some community discussion on whether there are solutions within the scope of the resolution that the dewiki community would find acceptable, or whether the prevailing view is that the resolution itself should be scrapped altogether?
Erik,
There was a little bit of brainstorming around this at
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier#thumb.2Fhidden
That idea was added to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#thumb.2Fh...
Neitram has since come up with another proposal that's at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Simple_pe...
Andreas
Thanks, Erik
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069472.html
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Erik Moeller wrote:
With that said, I also think it's important to remember that Sue has explicitly affirmed that the development of any technical solution would be done in partnership with the community, including people who've expressed strong opposition to what's been discussed to date. [1]
[...]
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069472.html
What does "partnership with the community" mean here? In a subsequent mailing list post to this list, you propose a detailed solution: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069909.html
Some might think, given your position, that this is what the engineering department will soon start working on. Is this the case? Was there any partnership with the community on this idea?
I think any serious consultation with the community starts and ends on-wiki. If only there were some sort of meta-wiki where people from the Wikimedia projects could come together and discuss brainstorming ideas for a workable filter...
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming
MZMcBride
* Erik Moeller wrote:
With that said, I also think it's important to remember that Sue has explicitly affirmed that the development of any technical solution would be done in partnership with the community, including people who've expressed strong opposition to what's been discussed to date.
There was a plan for that, "The Wikimedia Foundation, at the direction of the Board of Trustees, will be holding a vote to determine whether members of the community support the creation and usage of an opt-in personal image filter". Pretty logical question to ask, if a majority opposes the feature there is not much point in developing it, and when a majority supports it, development would be much easier. The community would likely have rejected the proposal if it had been given the chance to do so and had been properly informed of criticism, so the community was instead told the matter is already decided, was not informed of any criticism as part of the referendum, and wasn't given the option to clearly express opposition. That's how Sue Gardner understands partner- ship with the community. I don't think the community wants more of it.
Hi Eric,
thanks for your answers. For me they were really helpful, and I hope they can lead to some understanding-
Some of these ideas are explored here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Next_steps/en#Potenti...
Is there a similar brainstorming page on dewiki already? If not, would you be interested in organizing some community discussion on whether there are solutions within the scope of the resolution that the dewiki community would find acceptable, or whether the prevailing view is that the resolution itself should be scrapped altogether?
Right now I am afraid, the resolution has become highly symbolic, and a page like this would mean a general acceptance of the resolution. I think you can find people who would work on such a page. But it will impose severe social costs to the editors if they are seen doing this - and what is more important, I have severe doubts if they would be legitimized to speak for the community.
Although I actually think, there are ways to reconcile the community and the Board. As far as I understand it, there are several criteria which are highly important to the community:
- No interference in the editorial process from outside. - Especially not on this way, which would mean no discussion or no possibility to react for the community. - The only judgement on contents should be, whether they are in their given context educational or not. Not if they are considered morally good or bad. - Especially when this judgement is done by people who seem to be far outside of the common value set shared by Germans.
regards dirk/southpark
* Dirk Franke wrote:
the cultural homogenous group of Germans tends to discuss in German. So to give you a short update on what is happening:
A White Bag protest movement against the image filter is forming.
And people who talked privately about a fork for some time, start to think and say it loud.
"The Wikimedia Foundation is not going to impose something on the German Wikipedia, against the will of the German community." -- Sue Gardner in http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=3025813&oldid=3025365 today.
Thank you Björn,
may have overlooked it otherwise.
and thank you, Sue :-)
dirk
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoermi@gmx.netwrote:
- Dirk Franke wrote:
the cultural homogenous group of Germans tends to discuss in German. So to give you a short update on what is happening:
A White Bag protest movement against the image filter is forming.
And people who talked privately about a fork for some time, start to think and say it loud.
"The Wikimedia Foundation is not going to impose something on the German Wikipedia, against the will of the German community." -- Sue Gardner in http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=3025813&oldid=3025365 today. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org